President Donald Trump clapped back at a report that was just released about the global artificial intelligence arms race, which claimed China has more than double the electrical power-generation capacity of the United States.

Trump, in a pointed social media post on his platform Truth Social, called the report’s findings ‘WRONG,’ adding that every big artifical intelligence plant being built in the United States will have its own private power plants that will also send excess energy back to the country’s broader energy grid. 

‘The Wall Street Journal has another ridiculous story today that China is dominating us, and the World, on the production of Electricity having to do with AI,’ Trump said in his Truth Social post responding to the news report. ‘AI has far more Electricity than they will ever need because they are building the facilities that produce it, themselves.’

‘We are leading the World in AI, BY FAR, because of a gentleman named DONALD J. TRUMP!’ the president contended. 

The Wall Street Journal report Trump was targeting indicated that China now has 3.75 terawatts of power-generation capacity, which the outlet said is more than double what the United States holds. The Journal called China’s electrical generation capacity the country’s ‘Ace to play’ in the global artificial intelligence arms race, since the United States is still home to the most powerful artificial intelligence models and controls access to the most advanced computer chips. 

In Trump’s Truth Social post responding to the Journal’s claims, the president said that the approvals for new artificial intelligence plants and their accompanying ‘Electric Generating Facilities’ are being approved ‘quickly’ and ‘carefully,’ indicating the process has generally been taking ‘a matter of weeks.’

Trump also highlighted that any ‘excess’ electrical energy produced by these electric generation facilities would be ‘going to our Electric Grid,’ which the president said was being ‘strengthened, and expanded … like never before.’

On Thursday, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was quoted in TIME Magazine piece saying that artificial intelligence is the Trump administration’s ‘No. 1 scientific priority.’ Wright was quoted in a wide-ranging piece titled ‘The Architects of AI Are TIME’s 2025 Person of the Year.’

In its reporting on Wright, the magazine noted that the Energy Department is working ‘in tandem with other agencies like the EPA to slash regulations around the construction of data centers and power plants.’

Fox News Digital’s Alexander Hall contributed to this report.

Britain is preparing to take on the ‘heavy lifting’ in Europe if President Donald Trump secures a Ukrainian ceasefire, U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said, outlining a deployment-ready coalition that London has been quietly organizing for months.

The defense chief insisted that Trump is leading the negotiations for peace, even as leaders from Germany, Britain and France huddled with Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week to try to craft an alternative to a U.S.-brokered proposal the Ukrainian president viewed as too deferential to Russia.

‘We are ready to step in behind the president in his push for peace,’ he said during a briefing with reporters after meeting with War Secretary Pete Hegseth on AUKUS, the Australia-UK-US nuclear submarine-building deal. ‘We are ready to step in as he forces the pace of the negotiations in the way that only President Trump can. Because if he can get a ceasefire agreement, we are ready to do the heavy lifting in Europe.’

Trump has said Ukraine ‘has to be realistic’ about a peace plan that would include ceding territory to Russia — a prospect Zelenskyy has insisted is unacceptable. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday that he, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had proposed to Trump that they finalize the peace proposal with U.S. officials over the weekend.

Healey said the UK is prepared to send troops and equipment to enforce the peace deal once it is signed. ‘For the last six months we’ve got 200 military planners, over 30 nations working together. We’ve laid reconnaissance visits to Ukraine,’ he said. ‘We have the troops ready, we have the planes available. We have the ships on standby to be able to deploy.’

Healey offered one of the clearest signals yet that Britain expects to play a central role in enforcing any post-war security arrangement — even as Europe remains divided over how a deal should be structured.

While territorial claims appear to be the main sticking point in negotiations, questions remain over what sort of security guarantees the West would offer Ukraine. The initial proposal the U.S. brokered with Russia stipulated that Western troops and jets would remain outside Ukraine in NATO territory.

Western officials have been debating whether any agreement would require a multinational force to monitor front lines or secure key infrastructure inside Ukraine once a ceasefire takes hold. Healey suggested Britain is preparing for that possibility, saying the UK and a coalition of more than 30 nations have already positioned troops, aircraft and ships that could deploy if the terms of a deal allow for an international presence on the ground.

Healey’s meetings in Washington came just after the White House released a national security strategy that took an unusually severe tone toward Europe, warning of political decline and calling for the U.S. to ‘cultivate resistance’ within European nations. The strategy warns that Europe’s economic and social problems are ‘eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.’

The document also calls for Europe to ‘take primary responsibility for its own defense,’ a point Healey said the UK is already prepared to meet, brushing off questions about whether the strategy had sown division inside the transatlantic alliance.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas grilled prominent left-leaning lawyer Marc Elias this week about a campaign finance law, joining several other conservative justices in voicing skepticism about the law’s restrictions on certain types of political donations.

Thomas’ questions centered on a Federal Election Campaign Act provision that limits how much money state and national political parties can spend when coordinating with specific candidates.

Republicans who brought the lawsuit argued that the coordinated political spending is protected speech and should not be limited by Congress, while Elias, a prolific election lawyer, argued to the high court that Congress has a right to cap those expenses.

Thomas and Elias appeared at odds during oral arguments, as Thomas questioned why coordinated political spending between parties and candidates should face limits — particularly when it covers routine campaign expenses like hotels or food.

‘Just so I’m clear, is there any First Amendment interest in coordinated expenditures?’ Thomas asked.

Elias replied ‘yes,’ but said a party paying an individual campaign’s bills was ‘symbolic speech’ that is not fully protected and should be subject to standard contribution limits.

‘I still don’t understand what you’re saying,’ Thomas told Elias. ‘If the party coordinates with the candidate and pays the bill, does that have a First Amendment protection or is it simply, as you say, a bill-paying exercise?’

‘It is speech,’ Elias said, but he said court precedent says the bill payment ‘is treated as a contribution, and, therefore, though it is speech, it is subject to limit by Congress in how much can be spent on engaging in that speech.’

Congress currently limits individual donations that can be made to a political candidate, and the Supreme Court has in past cases balanced allowing First Amendment-protected political donations while also allowing caps as a safeguard against outsize influence and corruption in elections.

But the high court is now being asked to potentially allow millionaires and billionaires to make unlimited individual contributions to a state or national political party, with the expectation that the money would be redirected and spent in coordination with a particular candidate. The decision could upend the current political spending landscape ahead of the 2026 midterm elections by allowing rich donors to flood state or national political parties with more money.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another skeptic of Elias’ argument, pointed out that outside groups can accept limitless funds and influence elections and that state and national parties appear disadvantaged because of it.

‘I am concerned that a combination of campaign finance laws and this court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared with outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy,’ Kavanaugh said.

‘That’s the real source of the disadvantage. You can give huge money to the outside group, but you can’t give huge money to the party, so the parties are very much weakened,’ he said.

The case was brought to the high court by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and two former Ohio Republican candidates: now–Vice President JD Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot.

The liberal justices leaned toward wanting to avoid further undoing campaign spending limits, which have eroded over time under Chief Justice John Roberts.

‘Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse… our tinkering causes more harm than good,’ said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. ‘Once we take off these coordinated expenditure limits, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.’

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the U.S. plans to take control of the oil currently on a tanker off the coast of Venezuela that was seized by U.S. forces Wednesday. 

Trump ‘talks a lot about how he thinks the way to bring down prices for everything would be to bring down the cost of energy,’ Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Peter Doocy said Thursday. ‘Would he use this seized Venezuelan oil to try to help Americans with affordability here in the United States?’

Leavitt responded, ‘The vessel will go to a U.S. port, and the United States does intend to seize the oil. However, there is a legal process for the seizure of that oil and that legal process will be followed.’ 

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. had seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, sharply escalating U.S. tensions with the nation. The tanker was seized for allegedly being used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

‘The vessel is currently undergoing a forfeiture process. Right now, the United States currently has a full investigative team on the ground, on the vessel, and individuals on board the vessel are being interviewed, and any relevant evidence is being seized,’ Leavitt continued, adding that the oil on the tanker will go through a legal process before the U.S. claims the energy source. 

The tanker, called the Skipper, loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of oil earlier in December, before transferring an estimated 200,000 barrels just before its seizure, Reuters reported.

The oil on the tanker is likely worth $60 million to more than $100 million, based on current average oil prices. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for any additional comment on the estimated price tag of the oil but did not immediately receive a reply. 

The U.S. military has carried out strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats near Venezuela since September as part of Trump’s mission to end the flow of drugs into the nation. There have been at least 22 strikes on suspected narcotraffickers near Venezuela, killing 87, since September. 

Doocy pressed Leavitt during the press conference on whether the U.S.’ strikes and heightened tensions with Venezuela, dubbed Operation Southern Spear, are ‘about drugs or is it about oil?’

‘The Trump administration is focused on doing many things in the Western Hemisphere,’ Leavitt responded. ‘The president has taken a new approach that has not been taken by any administration for quite some time to actually focus on what’s going on in our own backyard. And there are two things that are very important to this administration.’

The boat strikes are viewed as part of a U.S. pressure campaign on Venezuela likely aimed to not only curb the flow of drugs, but also to oust dictatorial President Nicolás Maduro as leader of the oil-rich nation. 

‘Number one, stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States of America, which we know has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans,’ she continued, before adding that Trump is ‘fully committed to effectuating this administration’s sanction policy. And that’s what you saw, and the world saw take place yesterday.’

‘With respect to the oil and what happened yesterday, the Department of Justice requested and was approved for a warrant to seize a vessel because it’s a sanctioned shadow vessel known for carrying black market sanctioned oil to the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), which, you know, is a sanctioned entity,’ she continued. Venezuela is already subject to extensive U.S. sanctions, but was historically a major crude-oil supplier for the U.S.

Leavitt added that the administration will remain committed to the ‘president’s sanction policies and the sanction policies of the United States.’

‘We’re not going to stand by and watch sanctioned vessels sail the seas with black market oil. The proceeds of which will fuel narco-terrorism of rogue and illegitimate regimes around the world,’ she said. 

Fox News Digital’s Morgan Phillips contributed to this report. 

A lone progressive’s effort to impeach President Donald Trump failed Thursday, with nearly two dozen Democrats joining the House GOP to quash it.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, moved to get a vote on two articles of impeachment Wednesday night via a privileged resolution, a mechanism allowing lawmakers to force action on a bill within two legislative days.

Republicans called for a vote to table the measure on Thursday, a move that effectively kills consideration of the bill itself when a privileged resolution is called for.

Twenty-three Democrats joined Republicans in pushing the impeachment aside. A significant number of Democrats also voted ‘present,’ including all three senior leaders — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

‘Impeachment is a sacred constitutional vehicle designed to hold a corrupt executive accountable for abuse of power, breaking the law and violating the public trust. The effort traditionally requires a comprehensive investigative process, the collection and review of thousands of documents, an exacting scrutiny of the facts, the examination of dozens of key witnesses, Congressional hearings, sustained public organizing and the marshaling of the forces of democracy to build a broad national consensus,’ the trio said in a statement explaining their vote.

‘None of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda. Accordingly, we will be voting ‘present’ on today’s motion to table the impeachment resolution as we continue our fight to make life more affordable for everyday Americans.’

The final vote fell 237 to 140, with 47 ‘present’ votes.

Among the Democrats who voted to table the measure are Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., Josh Riley, D-N.Y., Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Sharice Davids, D-Kan., Don Davis, D-N.C., Shomari Figures, D-Ala., and others.

Green has filed articles of impeachment against Trump several times over the past year and notably was thrown out of the president’s joint address to Congress in March for repeatedly interrupting his speech.

The latest impeachment push includes two articles charging abuse of power, according to legislative text viewed by Fox News Digital.

The first count accuses Trump of calling for the ‘execution’ of six congressional Democrats. It was in response to Trump accusing those Democrats of ‘seditious behavior,’ which he said was ‘punishable by death’ after they posted a video urging military service members to refuse illegal orders by the federal government.

The video caused a firestorm on the right, with the FBI opening an inquiry into those Democrats — who all defended their comments.

Green’s second allegation of abuse of power charges Trump with having ‘fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault; and in this climate has made threats and vituperative comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being, and undermining the independence of our judiciary.’

But while the vast majority of Democrats have made no secret of their disdain and disagreements with Trump, it appears that few have the appetite to make a largely symbolic gesture toward impeachment.

Even Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has side-stepped questions on supporting impeachment multiple times this year, including most recently on Dec. 1 when asked about the military’s double-tap strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in September.

‘Republicans will never allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. And we know that’s the case, because Donald Trump will order them not to do it. So what’s on the table is a meaningful investigation, which we can hope would be bipartisan,’ Jeffries said at the time.

Even if the impeachment vote were to move forward, it’s all but certain that the GOP majority in the Senate would quickly dispense of it.

Senate Republicans rallied to block Senate Democrats’ extension of expiring Obamacare subsidies as both sides of the aisle suffer defeats on their proposals to deal with the looming healthcare cliff.

Over the course of the 43-day government shutdown, Senate Democrats made the longest closure in history all about the subsidies, which were passed and enhanced under former President Joe Biden.

They argued that if Congress didn’t act, Americans who rely on the subsidies would be hit with skyrocketing premiums. Their plan, however, was one that was never going to pass muster with the majority of Senate Republicans, who demanded myriad reforms to the program that they charged was rife with fraud.

Only Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., split from their party to support Democrats’ plan on an otherwise party line vote on Thursday, leaving the upper chamber without a solution to the fast-approaching deadline to either extend or replace the subsidies. Still, both sides of the aisle want to tackle rising healthcare costs, they just can’t agree on the best solution.

‘We don’t need to come up with the perfect plan,’ Hawley told Fox News Digital before the vote. ‘We need to say what will help right now to lower healthcare costs? That’s a more achievable goal, and that’s doable, so I am willing to vote for just about anything that has a legitimate shot at lowering healthcare costs right now. So that’s where I’d start.’

Senate Democrats’ plan, in comparison with Republicans’ offering that was blocked minutes before, was a straightforward three-year extension of the expiring enhanced subsidies.

But the plan did not include several reforms Republicans demanded, like measures to prevent fraud, income caps and more stringent enforcement of Hyde Amendment language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘Our bill is the only proposal on either side that has party-wide support on both sides of the Capitol,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., charged that Democrats’ proposal wasn’t based on reality.

‘What [Schumer] is saying about a Democrat plan that will lower healthcare costs is a fantasy,’ Thune said. ‘It just is. It’s a fantasy.’

While neither side can reach a consensus on how to actually move forward on a healthcare plan, both recognize that time is running out to find a fix and that the cost of healthcare is running rampant.

Democrats see the subsidies as a quick fix that can stop the bleeding, while Republicans are looking for broader, immediate reforms that could start putting a dent in healthcare costs.

Bipartisan talks have continued throughout the process, but those too are being hampered by the GOP’s red line on more stringent enforcement of anti-abortion measures on the Obamacare exchange, which is a nonstarter for Democrats.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., predicted that both Republicans’ and Democrats’ proposals would fail but that ‘hopefully, that keeps us working on getting something where we provide assistance, but get some reforms.’

‘But we can’t keep just sending the money to insurance companies and continue this runaway medical inflation that just perpetuates the problem,’ Hoeven said.

Senate Democrats banded together to kill Republicans’ plan to replace expiring Obamacare subsidies on Thursday, knocking the first of two proposals down for the count.

Senate Republicans’ plan from Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, the chairs of the Senate health and finance panels, would have abandoned the Obamacare enhanced premium subsidies for health savings accounts (HSAs), along with several reforms that Republicans appeared largely unified behind earlier this week.

Still, not every Senate Republican voted for the bill. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined all Senate Democrats in tanking the legislation on a largely party-line vote.

Lawmakers are now set to vote on Senate Democrats’ plan, which would extend the subsidies for another three years. That proposal is also expected to fail, given that Senate Republicans broadly don’t want to extend the subsidies without myriad reforms.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats have pitched their plan as the only option to prevent healthcare premiums from skyrocketing, while Republicans contended that the subsidies are rife with fraud and that the entire Obamacare system was causing premium prices to crank up year after year.

‘The Cassidy-Crapo [plan] is not a healthcare plan,’ Schumer said. ‘It’s not a plan at all. It’s an excuse. It’s a fig leaf. Because Republicans are so divided and can’t come up with a plan that unites them. They propose this fig leaf.’

‘My guess is most Republicans themselves are grimacing that they even have to vote for this thing,’ he continued. ‘How is a one-time check going to help you if you’re paying 1,000 or $2,000 a month more for health insurance?’

Cassidy and Crapo’s plan would have seeded HSAs with $1,000 for people ages 18 to 49 and $1,500 for those 50 to 65 for people earning up to 700% of the poverty level. In order to get the pre-funded HSA, people would have to buy a bronze or catastrophic plan on an Obamacare exchange.

It also included several provisions that didn’t make the cut in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ including measures to reduce federal Medicaid funding to states that cover illegal immigrants, requirements that states verify citizenship or eligible immigration status before someone can get Medicaid, a ban on federal Medicaid funding for gender transition services and nixing those services from ‘essential health benefits’ for Obamacare exchange plans.

It also included Hyde Amendment provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions through the new HSAs, a red line for many Senate Republicans that has proven divisive between the aisles.

The deadline to either extend or replace the credits, which were first passed and then enhanced under former President Joe Biden during the COVID-19 pandemic, is at the end of the year.

But whether the Senate acts before the deadline remains in the air, given that next week will be their last working week before leaving Washington, D.C., until the new year. There are several plans still on the table for lawmakers to choose from.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ahead of the vote that it was clear that Schumer wanted Senate Democrats to fall in line for the upcoming vote but noted that there were still ongoing bipartisan conversations, and he didn’t close the door a possible Obamacare fix with the limited time lawmakers had left before the clock runs out.

‘If there is an interest in solving that, I don’t rule it out,’ Thune said. ‘I mean, obviously we don’t have a lot of time to do this, but I think there are ways in which you could where there’s a will, and if there are two sides willing to come together.’

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., called on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign Thursday during opening remarks at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on ‘Worldwide Threats to the Homeland.’

‘You have systematically dismantled the Department of Homeland Security, put your own interests above the department, and violated the law. You are making America less safe,’ said Thompson. ‘So rather than sitting here and wasting your time and ours with more corruption, lies and lawlessness, I call on you to resign. Do a real service to the country and just resign. That is, if President Trump doesn’t fire you first.’

As Noem was giving her opening statement, several protesters against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interrupted, yelling, ‘Get ICE off our streets,’ and, ‘Stop terrorizing our community.’

The protesters were escorted out by Capitol Police and detained outside the hearing room.

Noem, who was joined at the hearing by National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent and Michael Glasheen, the operations director of the National Security Branch of the FBI, said one of her grandchildren, who was in the audience, was crying a little during Thompson’s remarks.

‘I don’t think she agreed with him,’ Noem said jokingly.

She touted the work DHS has done to secure the southern border and protect the U.S.

‘DHS is eradicating transnational organized crime and the stopping of deadly drugs from continuing to be funneled into our communities,’ she told lawmakers. ‘We’re ending illegal immigration, returning sanity back to our immigration system, and we’re defending against cyberattacks against our critical infrastructure.’

The former South Dakota governor, speaking about the global threats facing the country — including those posed by domestic extremists and radical Islamic terrorism — said the U.S. should brace for heightened risks as it prepares to host major events in 2026 such as the World Cup and the nation’s 250th birthday.

‘These large-scale events will be potential targets for a range of bad actors, and they come with an increased level of risk. DHS is using every tool and authority we have to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens, and our visitors can enjoy next year’s events,’ Noem added.

Rumors had swirled in recent days that President Donald Trump was considering replacing her as head of DHS. Trump pushed back on those rumors on Wednesday, telling reporters that Noem has been ‘fantastic.’

Noem also addressed the rumors, speaking to Fox News prior to Thursday’s hearing.

‘Oh, that’s absolutely not true,’ she said. ‘President Trump and I are doing wonderfully. I’m so proud to work for him, and I’m going to continue to serve at his pleasure.’

Fox News’ Bill Melugin contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump on Thursday pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to dismantle the Senate’s ‘blue slip’ tradition, arguing that the practice has allowed Democrats to block Republican judicial and U.S. attorney nominees.

‘If they say no, then it is OVER for that very well qualified Republican candidate. Only a really far left Democrat can be approved. It is shocking that Republicans, under Senator Chuck G, allow this scam to continue. So unfair to Republicans, and not Constitutional,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘I am hereby asking Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a fantastic guy, to get something done, ideally the termination of Blue Slips. Too many GREAT REPUBLICANS are being, SENT PACKIN’. None are getting approved!!!’

Trump’s remarks come as courts continue to scrutinize the legality of his U.S. attorney appointments.

Alina Habba announced on Monday that she would be stepping down as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey after an appeals court ruled she was unlawfully serving in the role.

Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, after Erik Siebert resigned. A federal judge in November dismissed the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding that Halligan had been unlawfully appointed and therefore lacked the authority to bring the charges.

Trump is effectively urging the Senate to end the long-standing custom for all judicial nominees. Senators from both parties are reluctant to change the practice, fearing they would lose the ability to stall or block nominees they have concerns about.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – One would think that running a profitable legal marijuana industry would be just about the easiest thing in the world, but don’t tell that to the Democrat leadership of Minnesota, which allowed wokeness and apparent corruption to grind their legalization rollout into dust.

Wherever one lands on the benefits or increasingly evident harms of marijuana legalization, once a state decides to do it, it has a responsibility to do it in a way that most benefits all the citizens. Of course, Gov. Tim Walz and the Minnesota Democrats made it all about social equity.

The 2023 legalization legislation mandated that for a year and a half, only Indian reservations could obtain licenses, a form of reparations similar to when New York mind-numbingly mandated that only people with previous marijuana convictions could open stores.

The upshot is that today, several dispensaries in the state have no product and others have a dwindling supply. One dispensary operator told me with a sigh, ‘We might get a new supply next week.’

And that’s not all, because the state has not approved enough licenses for transporting the product, much of it is sitting at farms, unable to get to market.

But the worst part of this, one very much related to the current scandal over fraud committed by Somali groups supposedly feeding kids, is that the legislation provides millions of dollars in grants and loans to start weed shops based on wokeness and DEI.

For example, the CanStartUp program ‘is a loan program available to new cannabis microbusinesses,’ in which a non-profit hands out the taxpayer cash ‘with priority given to social equity applicants.’

‘Social Equity Applicants,’ can be roughly read to mean no White guys.

Dr. Scott Jensen, one of several Republicans seeking to stop Walz from winning a third term next year, said it is part of a pattern with Walz and his cronies.

‘The Walz team has repeatedly been characterized by a willingness to play political hardball by picking winners and losers, focusing on preserving voting blocks, rewarding loyalty over competence, ignoring employee input, and squashing transparency,’ Jensen told me.

John Nagel, a former state trooper running as a Republican against Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., had a harsher assessment.

‘Minnesota Democrats are recreating the exact conditions that led to the Feeding Our Future scandal, only this time they’re doing it inside the state’s new marijuana industry,’ he said. ‘When you look at the pattern, it’s unmistakable. The same political class that let Feeding Our Future flourish is now designing the cannabis market using the same toolkit—DEI language as political cover, nonprofit intermediaries with insider ties, and almost no accountability.’

He’s got a point. Why does Minnesota need to hand out millions of dollars to nonprofits to teach people how to sell weed? It’s not hard, just hang up a sign and ring up the sales.

This kind of corruption is nothing new. In the 1920s, Democratic Party machines gave out no-show patronage jobs down at the docks. Today, they hand out needless multimillion-dollar DEI contracts. It’s the same game.

The job of the government is to make things run efficiently for all citizens, not to infuse every project or policy with DEI initiatives that are little more than payoffs to loyal voter groups. Nationwide, the amount of money shelled out for this nonsense is in the billions.

In the wake of the Feeding our Future scandal, it is obvious that the nonprofits involved in this DEI weed initiative must be investigated. How can anyone now trust that the money isn’t being abused?

The cherry on top of this abysmal situation is that the inability of legal dispensaries to serve their clientele is driving people back to the black market, which will result in increased marijuana arrests, the very thing this legislation was meant to prevent in the first place.

It’s honestly amazing.

Meanwhile, few people here in the Land of 10,000 Lakes even know any of this is happening, because the local news media, which simply calls this all a ‘logistics problem,’ acts more like accomplices than arbiters of truth.

Walz and the Democrats in Minnesota have no more benefit of the doubt when it comes to shady laws that shower money on DEI-driven nonprofits. It’s time to see where these millions of dollars to train up the next generation of cannabis workers really went.

Perhaps the state can show that spending these millions of dollars had some positive result for Minnesota, but right now, it seems far more likely that the money just went up in smoke.